Editorial

Some days ago I had the opportunity to take part in a seminar devoted to a discussion of the work of ten contemporary female Swedish poets. I am familiar with their production only in small parts and through a book I myself in a house of light, in which Åsa Beckman introduces the authors and gives interpretations of their work. In spite of my restricted background knowledge, I found myself enlightened.

In various ways the authors express their experiences of girlhood and the troublesome way to womanhood. The unfolding of what has been enfolded in their bodies requires a complex movement of breaking down a language which is mainly structured in accordance with male domination and male experiences, and transforming it in a poietic, i.e. a truly creative way. Although these women are exquisitely gifted in their command of language, you can almost physically sense their struggle with something, somebody, resembling what we in psychoanalysis might call superego.

The production of some of these poets extends over decades. Following their poetic development reminds me in many respects of analytic work, not least of analyses that stretch over long periods. But also, and perhaps more important, the discussion of the work of these poets, elucidates the need of breaking down old concepts and letting new ones be created. While many new and vital concepts have arisen within the psychoanalytic realm, there seems to be a strong reluctance to breaking down anything of the old structure. I think this is one of the main reasons for the present crisis of psychoanalysis. The resistance to letting go of a structure so often acclaimed as a complete theory in comparison with the fragmentary ideas of dwarfs like Adler, Jung, Rank and so on, seems to me to hinder new creative symbol formation from full blooming.

We have borrowed the title of this issue — “May I call you father?” — from Paulo Ceccarelli's article. One of his patients told him that he was able to relate sexually only to men who